Our minds are extremely probabilistic. They are good at that. They are not too good at certainty. We think they are. That's why we need computers, in a sense. Computers reason shockingly more reliably than humans, within their established scope. We underestimate quite how big that difference is. A typical CPU goes through more cycles in a second than the heart in a lifetime of beats. In a minute, that's another 59 lifetime+s, and typically, zero errors are made. Imagine 60 extra-long lifetimes doing math constantly and making no errors. (That first minute is just a taste. There isn't good public data on CPU errors, but CPUs are so accurate that they don't have built-in error-correction the way memory and hard drives do. If there were many more errors than this ballpark, that couldn't be true. Various kinds of marketplace ensure it. You'd run the same simulation twice and get different results. That's an experience people tend not to have at all. If the output is different for the same inputs, that typically means there's random number generation in the simulation, which means the two runs aren't precisely the same.)

Unless you stop to think about it and poke around, you have no idea how much better computers are at certainty than we are.

On the bright side, we are great at probability. We do need to remember that the bets our minds place in constructing an image of reality are colored by a wide variety of biases. But an excellent way to do this is to recognize that the kind of thinking we do is betting. It isn't too competitive in the domain of certainty. Knowing this makes immediate differences: for example, it's quite tough to hate a group of millions of people if you realize your opinions, feelings, and conclusions might be ill-founded.

What our brains do really, really well is heuristics (aka rules of thumb, guidelines, pro-tips), and overall the process falls under Bayesian reasoning/statistics. To put it all briefly, in logic, you aren't allowed to reverse IF-THEN statements. Sometimes the statement reversed is true, but whenever the reverse is true, that is its own new fact, a surprise that you would have to specifically know. It's lethal to presume THEN-IF also holds. In everyday life, though, we are constantly speculating about THEN-IFs. We do this so routinely, and find it useful often enough, that we rarely if ever stop to realize that what we are doing is not logic and very far from certain. Bayesian reasoning is a way to make informed guesses about when THEN-IF might also be true. And that's what our brains do 24/7. In terms of daily living, most of we think we know is an informed guess. But we cannot, if we want to be really sane (beyond the group "common sense" handed to us, which can also lead us astray), confuse the conclusions of this kind of reasoning with actual certainty.

Obviously it isn't all hopeless, and it's unwise to believe nothing and stand for nothing (nihilism and absurdism are forms of sophomorism, anyway). Combine critical thinking (including skepticism and knowing that THEN-IF isn't logic) with open-mindedness (which includes what I call positive skepticism: "It's possible" or "You never know" or "I could be wrong" or "Breakthroughs happen" or "Everything isn't always as it seems" or "There are more than two sides to every story"). This in no way at all prevents you from seeing that B is much more plausible than A. The mistake is shutting out uncertainty as if you've now conquered it. That rarely if ever happens.

Think of driving a car. Do you choose the right position to put the wheel in and leave it there? Or do you keep your hands and arms supple and responsive to the perpetual stream of updates from your eyes, etc? That's objectivity.

Even musicians use objective flexibility, or the suppleness of objectivity, in search of an optimal performance, believe it or not. According to top experts: to play violin better, stop tensing up. Relax your body as much as possible. Let it be ready to respond sensitively to the slightest thing. Tenseness is a presumption. You have to undo it first, then do the work of responding. So lose the tenseness, and respond to input. Respond to conditions. Don't resist new information, but process it, realizing that your process is heuristic, is a series of bets, is not much like a CPU. That's objectivity. That's making best use of humanity's gift.